November 4, 2009

The Maine vote was particularly discouraging for gay-rights groups because it took place in New England, the region that has been the most open to same-sex marriage, and because opponents of the repeal had far outspent backers....

Throughout the bitter campaign, supporters of same sex marriage had stressed that gay couples deserve equal treatment under the law, banking on Maine’s reputation as a “live and let live” state....

2. The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case that challenges the state constitutional amendment that barred both gay marriage and "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage." You can listen to the argument at the link. The challenge is based on a state law requirement that a referendum must present a single subject. Were the Wisconsin voters presented with one question or 2? Think about the fact that some voters would reject same-sex marriage but support "substantially similar" legal status.

Like our current President they overreach in pursuit of their ultimate goal. In-your-face tactics such as those found in San Francisco, CA., turn-off most Americans. The debacle of California's Prop 8 initiative a while back hurt their cause badly as did their over-the-top reaction.

The activists in the progressive party hurt the causes they hold dear. Anytime there is a GLBT parade it is time for the general population to hide who find such displays of debauchery repugnant to even moderate gays much less the rest of us.

A modicum of restraint and self-policing will go a long way towards achieving some sort of legal recognition. That assumes of course that GLBT folks are actually interested in achieving these goals and not simply self loathing exhibitionists hell-bent on offending the rest of us on their way to their own vomitorium.

I agree it was a poorly worded amendment. "Marriage or an institution legally identical to marriage" would make sense as a single subject. Adding in "substantially similar" makes it two, because it could cover legal arrangements that had substantial differences but some similarities, which is quite a wide range of possible arrangements.

It's Bush's fault. But Gays should have hope that as soon as their first goal that the population of the world be reduced by two-thirds to preserve the "Carrying Capacity of Mother Earth", then the Sorosocrats will politically revisit these issues. Their Goddess does not call itself Gaia for nothing.

AllenS said... I'd like to see obituaries name the cause of death. For example: lung cancer, heart attack, AIDS...

you seldom see AIDS as a cause of death. First to protect the privacy of families, since family doctors write or influence the death certificates in all but homicides. Secondly, death is usually directly caused by some other infection, AIDS is an underlying contributor.

AllenS, people can enter that information in their obit if they want, but you can't get it from, say, the Hospital because of HIPPA -- or whatever that law's acronym is.

I'll add that I don't like the result of the law -- you can never get information on the status of shooting victims, for example, unless you're the family. And yet there can be a compelling reason for the public to know that information.

According to AP, Maine is now the 31st straight...err..perhaps I should say "successive" State to turn down gay marriage.

On one side, you have the majority of voters in every state allowed to vote so far. On the other, you have media, progressive Jews, hardcore gay activists, Hollywood, Manhattanite trendsetters, and legal activists claiming that The People really, really want gay marriage...The Ruling Elites should pay heed! All while busily trying to bypass the People and ram it down The People's throats via the Courts and judges who feel legislatures are inferior to their more august judgment.

They should have just said in Referandum ...Vote for or against gay marriage.

Second item - vote for or against civil unions for gays..

3rd item, vote for or against gay civil unions and the right of certain other people who would be made eligible - like a sister supporting an adult handicapped sister - to have the legal right to shared employer & insurance benefits.

My guess is gay marriage goes down and the 31-0 vote against it in States is proof of that.But I suspect civil unions would pass in most states, and in yet more states if civil unions were expanded to benefit more than just gay couples.

Seems pretty clear to me that the Wisconsin amendment is "two subject." I would expect quite a bit of ticket splitting if the referendum has been posed as two questions, and I'd bet there are plenty of jurisdictions in the country where SSM would be defeated while some sort of civil union will be passed.

Drill and MadMan, mostly, I was responding to downtownlad's post Gays will get their rights when the old people die. Again - that's why I love reading the obituaries every day. I know what goes into the obits.

Most of my friends are gay (I'm not). Virtually all of them find flamboyant in-your-face gay behavior repugnant. Most gay events and parades are even worse. The whole intent is to shock by trying to disgust people.

You know that DTL, but you are at the mercy of your emotions and that's why your disgusting comment flowed forth without any introspection.

Although most people are fine with civil unions, this makes 31 attempts at changing the definition of marriage and 31 failures.

Some Gays need to control their anger and realize their opponents are people too - not closet bigots who can be shouted down. I doubt gays would be as accommodating if straights wanted to eliminate a similarly held gay tradition that was as old as homosexuality itself.

Some gays are making the whole community look like an ugly intolerant KKK movement.

Lad; you need to get "out" more. What sealed the deal for many moderates, straight or otherwise, was the "carnivale" invasion of the church by flaming anarchist gays who disrupted Church services to take communion while tossing gay literature into the air in front of the parishioners.

If that is your idea of subtlety, I rest my case. Further, nitpicking over AIDS diagnosis on a PC death certificate as a compromised immune system leading to death by malnutrition is specious and self-serving.

By the way, how many gays lost their jobs in California after Prop 8 failed because the owner donated to support that cause? The ensuing boycott by angry gays closed several establishments. I forgot, in your world the end justifies the means and there is no first ammendment rights for those with the temerity to disagree with you and/or your lifestyle.

That is the key failure in swaying public opinion, which apparently you crave, to support your cause.

The close vote in (still very white) Maine against gay marriage and the close vote in (whiter than average) Washington for an 'all but' solution suggest that the country is near but not quite at a tipping point in favor of gay marraige.

Here's my question: in ten, twenty years, is a more diverse America more open to gay marraige or more uncomfortable? Is California a troubling prophecy for gay rights or a fluke?

JAG; perception is everything. Whether one is a moderate Muslim keeping silent in the face of honor killings in this country or a moderate gay keeping silent in the face of an orgy parade in the Castro, remaining silent in the face of outrage is perceived as tacit approval.

The bane of the far left is accountability. At the very least the miscreants should be reined in and told in no uncertain terms their behavior is unacceptable.

Gay Marriage is catching on and I would vote for it. I think it will pass in more and more states and provided that happens democratically (as opposed to judicial edict) that is okay. But passing democratically means convincing voters it is a good thing and perhaps gay marriage proponents are failing do doing that.

And of course Barack Obama is against gay marriage and has big coat tails. Except in Virginia and New Jersey.

And I will note a paradox. Rosie O'Donnell may be nutty, but she made a lot of sense when Ellen called her about marching for Matthew Sheppard. Rosie said fine--provided Ellen also marched for James Bird (the black man who was dragged to death in Texas). Rosie was right on that issue. And shouldn't we all be speaking out about Muslim honor killings here in the United States and Canada (and of course Europe). Far worse of a problems than any gay bashing or even racially motivated attack crimes taking place now.

"Like our current President they overreach in pursuit of their ultimate goal."

Well said, vet66. Activists should take note that objection to abortion has increased since Roe v. Wade. But being an activist is lucrative and personally gratifying so the adversarial approach remains the model.

Get off your pedestals and do the hard work, activists. Convince your fellow Americans of your position, and you will have a lasting peace. Shove your position down their throats and you will have permanent war.

The close vote in (still very white) Maine against gay marriage and the close vote in (whiter than average) Washington for an 'all but' solution suggest that the country is near but not quite at a tipping point in favor of gay marriage.

"The ensuing boycott by angry gays closed several establishments. I forgot, in your world the end justifies the means and there is no first ammendment rights for those with the temerity to disagree with you and/or your lifestyle."

I'm not sure how choosing not to patronize anti-gay marriage businesses violates free speech. Doesn't a robust 1st Amendment support both of these activities, both the opposition and the opposition to the opposition?

Speaking of boycotts, if we're playing by Old Testament rules, I'm pretty sure Leviticus tells me gays are an abomination AND that I can't eat Shellfish. Sorry Maine, time to boycott your lobster.

"I'll go out on a limb and bet that you've never actually one a conversation with an actual gay person."

I did, when I was six and he was butt-raping me. I kept conversing "Stop!" but he wouldn't converse back to me.

And I've been to several gay pride marches in San Francisco where YMCA biker guys are literally blowing people right in the street out in public - gays masturbating everywhere ... AIDS dribbling down the sidewalks.

Indeed. The data is that when you mix race in with the gay marriage issue dynamic it becomes confounding. In California whites probably would've defeated Prop 8, but it was the yes votes from a huge majority of all those black people who showed up at the polls to vote for Obama which torpedoed gay marriage.

My prediction is that if and when the proponents of gay marriage eventually finally get their victory at the ballot box it's precisely going to happen in a white liberal enclave.

Fred4Pres said... Gay Marriage is catching on and I would vote for it. I think it will pass in more and more states and provided that happens democratically (as opposed to judicial edict) that is okay.

The problem with your premise about gay marriage passing in more and more states is that it hasn't passed muster in even one state yet.

===============Bagoh20 - Is correct. The only real support for gay marriage is with whites. The blacks and Latinos who have voted for it tend to not want to, but have leaders that decided it would be a good quid pro quo in return for gay money and support of various liberal entitlements "their people" would benefit from.

Within the white community, the strongest support is from young, college educated non-religious females, Jews, urbanized white males who aren't thrilled to see two guys, one 50 the other 16, in a public liplock - but conditioned to think that expressing their disgust would be bigoted and hateful and intolerant. And of course journalists and Hollywood.

"[Guys] aren't thrilled to see two guys, one 50 the other 16, in a public liplock."

So while you still equate the gay community with NAMBALA, me (24) and my boyfriend (23) or my boyfriend's uncle (40s) and his boyfriend (40s), or my countless friends and their boyfriends and girlfriends (all within a couple years of each other) should be subject not only to the inability to get married but the routine characterization as pedophiles.

gaywrites; are you being obtuse on purpose? The establishments in Santa Monica that were closed because customers were afraid to walk past angry protesters employed gay and lesbian waiters/waitresses. They lost their jobs.

You also missed another opportunity to state for the record that you oppose pedophilia among gays. You obfuscate the point of the post by ignoring the statutory rape of a minor in particular and focusing on the general gay right's lack of success at the purported hands of the ad hominem "homophobes" designation.

Insulting the intelligence of those you disagree with shows an absence of critical thinking on your part. Not a good way to win an argument.

You make it sound like we have Klansmen patroling the bridge between Kittery, ME and Portsmouth, NH keeping blacks out.

You're missing the point. If gay marriage can't pass in liberal, lily-white Maine, what chance does it stand in areas that are gaining large numbers of Hispanic immigrants? I don't think they have gay marriage in Mexico or Guatemala.

Disappointing result in Maine. I can sympathize with voters in other states who want to give the finger to philosopher-king judges who impose SSM on them against their will. But in Maine they'd done it the right way, and still they take this step back. Having the referendum in an off year probably didn't help.

"The establishments in Santa Monica that were closed because customers were afraid to walk past angry protesters employed gay and lesbian waiters/waitresses. They lost their jobs."

I was specifically talking about boycotting: not patronizing, refusing to engage in business transactions etc. Although I believe picketing is still part of 1st Amendment protections, I believe a business should be allowed to conduct business without public nuisances. You said boycott, and I was responding to that characterization, not a picket line.

I've met lots of gay men. Every single one of them has admitted they had pedophillic relationships with underage minors. Pedophilia is part-and-parcel of being gay.

This is absolutely outrageous, and completely false. I'm gay and I'm not a pedophile, and no gay person I've ever met has admitted to being a pedophile nor have I ever heard of a single one of them engaging in sexual activity with minors. And I know hundreds of gay people. Though I would never expect you to believe me because your mind was made up about me long before today.

"You also missed another opportunity to state for the record that you oppose pedophilia among gays."

I thought that was a given...but I guess you're right, in a group that assumes that all gays are pedophiles, I suppose I have to preface every statement with, "I oppose pedophilia, in every instance: men against boys, women against boys, men against girls, women against girls. It's unacceptable in any form. I can't believe this omission "insults your intelligence." Do you really need that reassurance from outset?

I see an opportunity for the Republican party to both move forward and neutralize a lot of "hate" charges, by supporting civil unions for gays (as well family members with medical issues. Since it is pretty obvious that civil unions seem to be an acceptable comfort zone for most people, but "marriage" (with all the religious connotations) is the third rail for the same groups, a smart move would be for the Republicans to move to support civil unions. Who best to do this? - Dick Cheney! (don't laugh). Just like "only Nixon could go to China" who else has the both gravitas as well as sympathy for gay issues? I would think this would be a way for the majority to reach an area they could accept as well as a direct way that the center could reject the extreme positions of the left and right. But would "half a loaf" ever be something that someone would have the energy to push? (or more to the point - to reject the extremes using it as an wedge issue just to energize their respective bases).

I've met lots of gay men. Every single one of them has admitted they had pedophillic relationships with underage minors.

You seem to possess an extraordinary talent for winning over casual acquaintances and facilitating admissions against interest.

My experience has been different. I’ve been friends with a relative handful of gay men and women. They were all pretty much like me except for their romantic/sexual appetite, which is something they never asked for, much as I never asked for mine. It just happened.

I don't believe that the mere fact that some voters would have voted for "substantially similar" but not "marriage" proves that the referendum contained two questions. Referenda, even in Wisconsin, often contain wording that would enact, or outlaw, more than one related thing.

In 1996, there was a referendum (which passed) to "prohibit a person from holding public office or from appearing on a ballot for state or local office if the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a violation of public trust or a felony and the person has not been pardoned for the conviction." (I bolded the conjunctions.)

With a question like that, you can imagine all of the permutations of possible voter attitudes toward the individual clauses. One might have favored prohibiting holding public office, but not appearing on ballots. Or one might want to bar felons, but not misdemeanor convicts. Or one might want to bar all convicts even if they were pardoned. But these plausible attitudes do not per se prove that the referendum was really more than one question.

Well California and now Maine, not exactly conservative or even moderately conservative states voted down SSM when presented in a referendum.

Perhaps the so called progressives should take a look in the mirror and ask themselves how can this be? Or maybe that image staring back at them is a bit frightening because it stands to reason, two largely liberal states should have had no problem getting SSM passed. Unless of course down deep inside the progressives don't support SSM any more than the 'Christianist' wing of the GoP does.

I have trouble following today's argument. Does pedophillic still mean sex with children pre puberty, like 10 and under. Or has that word definition transitioned to include boys from 11 to 18. I always thought that the Priests who did their 12 to 16 year old alter boys were not pedophiles, but were only normal gay men with a captive target population.

Traditionalguy makes a good point. People here are saying the gays they know either admit to or would never be pedophiles. But, if we are talking about early teens (14-18) then the idea that hundreds of gays (100%) you know never did that is ridiculous. Straights and gays have sex with this group pretty often and especially gays. I myself was "deflowered" this way. I don't think it was traumatic or terrible, but it definitely happens a lot. It's not horrible or new, but it is predatory and I think immoral for the older party.

Here's my question: in ten, twenty years, is a more diverse America more open to gay marraige or more uncomfortable?

I expect it depends on what the statistics look like for younger non-Whites, and what proportion of those young non-Whites are from families that have been in the US for a few generations, versus recent immigrants.

I think it also depends on the degree to which they feel that US law is normative. If they retain strong ties to their ancestral homelands (or to religious communities), they may not particularly care what the barbarians in the US do -- whether the US recognises homosexual marriages or not might not matter much to them, because the real arbiter of what is or isn't a marriage isn't within the power of the US legal system. At that point, it just becomes another peculiar (queer?) custom in this strange and distant land. And maybe they care about that, and maybe they don't.

Perhaps the so called progressives should take a look in the mirror and ask themselves how can this be? Or maybe that image staring back at them is a bit frightening because it stands to reason, two largely liberal states should have had no problem getting SSM passed.

California, with its large minority populations (and elevated Black turnout in 2008) isn't all that surprising in retrospect. Maine is surprising, given that it's basically all-White, and tends to be liberal. It may just be an artifact of who got could be bothered to go to the polls, though.

The referendum in Washington State was seeking to overturn a law which gave same-sex couples and senior citizens the same protections as married persons. I’m not sure this is a clear indication what the voters of Washington State think about same-sex protections, since we also passed an amendment a few years ago defining marriage as between a man and a woman.I’m sure young people, who also avoid marriage (possibly for different reasons than senior citizens), would agree they should be included in that group.In fact, why don’t we just include any two persons who wish to be legally protected. That would be the really fair thing to do.

Even with yesterday's rejection of same-sex marriage, Maine retains its domestic partnership law. This might actually work to the advantage of those who want the Wisconsin Supreme Court to find that the Wisconsin ballot question covered two subjects.

While I won't be surprised if the Wisconsin Court voids the ballot question, I don't want to see the court jump to the conclusion that the state must recognize same sex marriage.

Winning over people is hard work, and it is happening through the process of democracy. That it is a slower and harder process is not sufficient reason to work the courts. PatCA is right to point to Roe in arguing that the Court is not the place to settle controversial social issues like this.

Were the GOP to champion civil unions, as Ironclad suggests, it will have to engage in a process of repealing state amendments that specifically forbid the state to recognize such civil unions. I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

Fred4Pres, I don't think that Sullivan has gone so far as to blame Obama for the loss in Maine, he has been very critical of the President's silence on the issue.

As I think about it, I wonder whether gay marriage advocates might inadvertently be shooting themselves in the foot by pushing the "equality" argument. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that plenty of people who don't have a strong objection to "gay marriage" find the "equality" rhetoric somewhat offensive, in its insistence that gay marriage is exactly like traditional heterosexual marriage. It also takes on a brittle, potentially alienating edge, with the implicit accusation that anyone who disagrees is against equality, and therefore evil.

Perhaps an approach that plays up the notion of providing an accomodation for people who simply cannot find happiness in traditional marriages would be more successful? Something, that is, that avoided the harsh rhetoric and histrionics, but focused instead on the personal and individual circumstances at issue, playing on voters' sense of magnanimity and desire to be considerate, rather than trying to pressure a vote with the "YOU'RE NOT A BIGOT, ARE YOU?" atmospherics that the "equality" argument introduces. Arguably that only gets you to civil unions, not "marriage," but I think you might be able to pull it over the line.

Maybe that wouldn't work, but speaking for myself, I find the "equality" argument totally unpersuasive, but I'm a (mild) supporter of gay marriage for a combination of what I would call "accomodation" and "barn door cows gone" reasons.

Anyhow.

Three races surprised me yesterday -- New Jersey, NY-23, and this Maine result. Honestly, I still don't see how they managed to lose in Maine. But now that they're apparently 0 for 31, on state referenda, the pro-gay-marriage forces might want to rethink their campaign approach. Clearly, it's not working.

A question for the homosexualists among us: What is wrong with same-sex pedophilia? In 2000, the United Kingdom lowered the age of consent for sodomy from 18 to 16. With the stroke of a pen, what had been acts of pedophilia with 16- and 17-year-olds were now legal. Why stop at 16, why not 14, or 12? Why not the traditional age of reason, i.e., 7 years old? If anything goes, why not let it really go?

gaywriter - This is absolutely outrageous, and completely false. I'm gay and I'm not a pedophile, and no gay person I've ever met has admitted to being a pedophile nor have I ever heard of a single one of them engaging in sexual activity with minors. And I know hundreds of gay people.

I think you well understand the distinction between pedophilia, rare in the gay community...and pederasty...which is a near cultural norm in terms of gay acceptance and celebration of in America. And definitely a norm in past and present cultures in other lands.

Part of America's confusion on this is that a lazy media took to naming gay pederast priests the "pedophile priests" as a sound bite narrative. None of the gay clerics "victims" happened to be pre-pubescent. The typical age was 14-17, and many were quite willing young homosexuals the priests had screened as ready and eager young homosexuals...And feminists muddied the water in a quest for more personally empowering Victimhood by claiming that women between ages of 14 and 20 were still "children" - targeted by predatory males with their evil penises...

It is a familiar rhetorical dodge though, for many in the homosexual community, to try and exploit the confusion between pedophilia and pederasty to stridently assert that "few older gay men are pedophiles" or "I know hundreds, thousands of gay men and no pedophiles!"Leaving unmentioned, of course, the ancient, widespread tradition of gay pederasty. The world of rent boys and chickenhawks..of George Michael hitting on young teens in public restrooms, the typical age of one of Oscar Wilde's targets.

Why pederasty is a main reason behind Boy Scouts seeking to avoid gays (and fortunately for them avoid the financial ruin and stigma the RC Church got from being more tolerant and admitting gay pederasts into their ranks). And honestly, why modern militaries had widespread rules against having gays in the ranks until "progressive Europe" changed things. The late 18th, early 19th military studied the best classical militaries, and the then standards of excellence - the Prussian army and British Royal Navy. And determined that as the study subjects themselves wrote, from ancient Greeks & Persians to modern Prussian court martial proceedings - that pederasty and ensuent senior NCO and officer favortism to their buggered boy toys significantly undermined good order and discipline.

Now, many say the structures and training of even more modern militaries will allow for both nubile females and pederasts and gay NCOs and officers to be admitted to ranks and suffer no loss of organizational strength from it. Some arguments for it are quite good, and when I was in, we had several excellent but discrete gays who were assets, not liabilities.Yet there are some that wish to push it beyond reason (woman must be on submarines and Marine recon!), and many military units with lax discipline who end up with Abu Ghraibs OR discovery of huge prostitution rings or rampant sexual favortism (USS Samuel Gompers, the Dutch Army prostitution scandal, Ft Ord sex for favortism scandal, the infamous "gay Arab translators" who were discovered because they were going to HS functions and hitting on unattached HS boys).

Nomilk said... A question for the homosexualists among us: What is wrong with same-sex pedophilia? In 2000, the United Kingdom lowered the age of consent for sodomy from 18 to 16...

Sorry, Nomilk. You are another person ignorant of the distinction between pedophilia, pederasty, and the distinction of legal "age of consent" in various countries - which frequently applies "age gap" and recognition of abuse of power by authority figures into law.

Some simple guidelines:

1. Boinking a 10-year old is pedophilia.2. A 50 year old man boinking a 16 year old, even willing, boy, is pederasty.3. While a 16 year old boinking a 14 year old boy or girl does not generally trigger prosecutions even if "age of consent is 16". But a 46 year old teacher boinking the same 14 year old, will.

You are another person ignorant of the distinction between pedophilia, pederasty, and the distinction of legal "age of consent" in various countries

Actually I am aware of the differences--and I think what you mean by "pederasty" is actually "ephebophilia"--pederasty being the act of sodomy between man and adolescent boy and ephebophilia being the desire of men for adolescent boys.

balfegor - good post. I think you laid out why the insistance on "full moral equality" via gay marriage...coupled with the tactics of rage, confrontation, and accusing all opponents of bigotry explains in good part why gay marriage advocates are 0 for 31 in state voter referandums.

For gays, it should be a time for reflection on goals and tactics. But alas, currently their response is "retaliation" against distinct voting groups that went against them...and suing in court to overturn the results of votes.

That leads to even people who are strong advocates of civil unions to cheer as strident angry and self-righteous gay activists have their heads handed to them yet again. (And I favor extending civil unions past being a gay-only benefit. There should be no reason why an unmarried aunt who is single, working full time, should not be able to name her unmarried mentally handicapped sister she is solely supporting - as their employee pensions/health benefits/HSA benefits designee.)

The wording has to be weird, because by now, every possible practical wording has been ruled out by some tyrant judge. The gay activists and their allies on the bench are trying to FORCE Americans to accept them and their activism.How much money are we wasting by letting this crap go on and on? The gay activists need to start paying court costs when they lose.

If you think that this strong-arming isn't driving many normal people all the way into actual hatred of homosexuals, you are nuts. Leave us alone. Leave our institutions alone.

Downtownlad is a great example of so-called "progressives" hurting their cause.

I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but where I was once open to legalizing same-sex unions in some form, for a variety of reasons, I now love seeing same-sex marriage go down in flames time after time after time, for no other reason than I know it makes DTL pull his hair out in an apoplectic hissy fit.

it's amazing the type of drivel gay opposition spouts when trying to justify its stance. regardless of what they'll tell you, opponents' beliefs are always homophobic in nature. perhaps they should man up and be a little more conspicuous in their bigotry.

also notice how the rivals shift the blame to those who are championing this issue. they're not willing to bear responsibility for their intolerance, so they fault the gays in an attempt to emerge as ethically sound.

i'm especially amused by seemingly well-spoken individuals who use ten-cent words and various forms of wordplay in an effort to detract from their hollow shells of being. i think matriculation at a college of decency is in order.

PatCA: the truth is opponents simply don't like the nature of homosexuality and the nature of homosexual relationships. perhaps they view the perceived bedrock elements of the orientation as perverse or annoying. you erroneously assume a change in this belief will arise from a mere spectacle of debate.